-All the African bonuses are worth exactly what they say they are in the mini map, However when you hold any complete colony bonus with the corresponding European country it is increased by the amount denoted in the legend.

European Territories have no value of their own but +1 auto deploy.

Grey territories belong to no bonus.

Landing territories can be attacked by any colonial power and can assault their colony of origin. Landing territories start with 3 neutral troops.

This is cool. The 2x bonus with the European countries makes a lot of sense. I'm wondering, though, if you'd be able to get a little extra bonus for holding all of one European country's African colonies? It's nice to see a simpler map. Not as many free-range maps anymore, it seems.

Cheers,Sully

EDIT: Also, why does the Ottoman Empire have a bonus? It doesn't seem to have much relevance with the map idea, especially with the grey territories and all.

Well, if you're going for a historical map I'd highly recommend not fudging history. Spain didn't have much by way of African colonies due to a focus on both Americas, so cut it out.

One options for the mideast would be to make Turkey a colonial power and have its arabian areas as colonies. And I'm pretty sure Egypt went to the British around the 1870s, so if the theme is 1800s, you can pull it off.

The other major player missing from the map is the Netherlands, whos colonial efforts in South Africa have had effects lasting to this day.

What might be a more viable solution would be to portray Africa before the "scramble for Africa" took place. You could have various independent kingdoms in Africa, such as Morocco, Ethiopia, Zululand, Ashantiland, Tripoli, somewhat Egypt depending on how you look at it. Then you could have the Colonizers such as Britain, Portugal, Ottomans and France. Maybe throw Germany and Italy in there too. Then let the gameplay of the map determine how the scramble for Africa plays out, do the Africa natives hold their own, does Turkey meet with success in the Horn of Africa?

Industrial Helix wrote:One options for the mideast would be to make Turkey a colonial power and have its arabian areas as colonies. And I'm pretty sure Egypt went to the British around the 1870s, so if the theme is 1800s, you can pull it off.

Actually, Egypt and Sudan were nominally part of the Ottoman Empire till 1914. Maybe they could have some kind of dual status. It seems a bit weird to include the middle east in a map of colonial Africa, though. Maybe you should just leave it out.

And maybe you should include British and French Somaliland? You are making Italy into a bigger player than they really were.

Alright solution time. I think it's best to just take the Ottomans out of this all together. It's complicating things too much and it's only serving to distract from the main focus of this map. I also tried to reconcile Spain by adding the Canary Islands. That way it can still be at least 3 territories with out fudging history.

Wha-what? I like the Ottomans in there. I makes it a bit more clear that the colonial games wasn't just Europe and it also gives due credit to the Ottomans, whom people just tend to discount as a crappy empire.

Also, what are you going to do with the West Coast of Africa with countries like Togo and Sierra Leone or Guinea-Bissau?

Wha-what? I like the Ottomans in there. I makes it a bit more clear that the colonial games wasn't just Europe and it also gives due credit to the Ottomans, whom people just tend to discount as a crappy empire.

I don't know, It's not a subject I know a lot about. I was a little intimidated by it. I could try and work them back in. Turkey being the capital, and Egypt, Lebanon/syria/Isreal, Arabia, and Yemen as Colonies right? Would that be historically accurate?

Also, what are you going to do with the West Coast of Africa with countries like Togo and Sierra Leone or Guinea-Bissau?

Honestly I was gonna leave them out because, their too small. Maybe combine into one territory or just make an independent west coast bonus, or something. I don't know Leave them out was what I was leaning towards.

Regarding the Ottomans and the general gameplay, here's what I am thinking. Make the colonies not part of any one bonus but part of two or three bonuses, depending on the circumstances. For example, Egypt was an Ottoman territory for most of its recent history until the British nabbed it from them. So give it stripes and let it provide a bonus for either an ottoman or british player.

As for Turkey's 'colonial' past. Everything south of Anatolia was generally regarded to be 'colonies' of Turkey. The Arabs and Egyptians viewed Turkey as a foreign occupier once Nationalism reached the middle east. Persia was never ruled by a foreign power. And the Ottoman Empire had a very strong relationship with eastern Africa, such as importing slaves from Mozambique throughout the 19th century. To ignore Turkey in a Colonial Africa map is a big mistake in my opinion. The only time they were excluded from the continent was the last quarter of the 19th century and after that European rule in Africa didn't last more than 50 years.

As for West Africa, I know what you mean. But you could throw Liberia in as a neutral, which it was, and for the other smaller colonies, perhaps use them as connectors for sea routes along the west african coast? It's pretty much how they evolved.

To be honest, I'd like to see the more independent Africa nations play some sort of role in the map. The Ethiopians beat the Italians a number of times and were only under Italian rule for less than ten years around WWII. Tripoli was a major independent power. The Ashanti and Zulus beat the British a number of times and I know the French met some defeat in West Africa.

The trouble with maps of Colonial Africa is that the map does not portray reality, despite what the British or French cartographers and politicians wanted people to believe. Both then and now.

One possible option would be to do the wars of decolonization, but then you run into trouble with places like Guinea-Bissau being one of the most heavily fought over areas and places like Egypt just being given up. It's kind of why I went for the WWII Africa map because it was the only time in history where the powers actually warred over all the boundries they'd drawn up over the continent.

Industrial Helix wrote:The trouble with maps of Colonial Africa is that the map does not portray reality, despite what the British or French cartographers and politicians wanted people to believe. Both then and now.

In which case it might be worth giving more thought to a hypotethical 'repatriation' war.

This could involve the European nations in your original draft, plus, Brazil, Columbia, Carribbean Islands, USA and maybe Argentina (and I think a few other places near Columbia) as starting positions (i.e. the descendants returning to free Africa from oppression, corruption and civil wars). Starting points could attack strategically selected landing points (in the New World map style) via ships - with the hypothetical nature of the map you could make the landing points wherever gameplay dictates rather than where history dictates.

Industrial Helix wrote:To be honest, I'd like to see the more independent Africa nations play some sort of role in the map.

In this hypothetical map, the African Union peacekeeping force could be respresented, with some kind of bonus system, or as part of an objective (hold the African Union for one turn). Possible other bonuses on the continent could be related to big cities or historiacally significant places (Mount Kilimanjaro, the Cradle of Mankind, the Pyramids etc.). Additionally, a few air bases (neutral starts, possibly killer neutrals) could be placed strategically and be able to attack back to the starting points.

A huge departure from the developments towards a historical map it has to be said. But then again, Rastafarians and the ghost of Marcus Garvey would like the map. Maybe I should do a sketch and set it up as a new idea?

OK - going back to the colonnial era then - is Britain just linked to its European neighbours or will there be homeland-africa links at all? With the doubling bonus system, some doubles will mbe easier (e.g. Italy) than others if we dont have these links. Not necessarily an issue, but worth thinking about.

Plus, is it worth having the Rivers Nile and Niger as impassables (with strategic bridges if needed)?

Overall, it would be cool to have this map set during the colonnial era, leaving the era of colonisation free to be picked-u

OK - going back to the colonnial era then - is Britain just linked to its European neighbours or will there be homeland-africa links at all?

Yeah I forgot to draw in the connections. Belgium, France, Spain, and German will all be capable of attacking England. Not entirely sure about connecting the colony to their homelands yet. I was thinking over all No but I was considering 1 connection between England and South Africa.